Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS LOUANN VAN DER WIELE CHAIRPERSON REV. MICHAEL MURRAY

VICE-CHAIRPERSON DULCE M. FULLER SECRETARY JAMES A. FINK JOHN W. INHULSEN JONATHAN E. LAUDERBACH BARBARA WILLIAMS FORNEY KAREN D. O'DONOGHUE MICHAEL B. RIZIK, JR.

STATE OF MICIDCAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

211 WEST FORT STREET, SUITE 1410

DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3236 PHONE: 313-963-5553 I FAX: 313-963-5571

MARK A. ARMITAGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

WENDY A. NEELEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR

KAREN M. DALEY ASSOCIATE COUNSEL

SHERRY L. MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRA TOR

ALLYSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER

OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER

JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONISTISECRETARY

www.adbmich.org

NOTICE OF REPRIMAND (By Consent)

Case No. 17-16-GA Notice Issued: May 2,2017 Gail M. O'Brien, P 36952, Grosse Pointe Park, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #19.

Reprimand, Effective April 29, 2017 The respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a stipulation for a consent order of discipline, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. The stipulation contains respondent's admissions to the allegations that she committed professional misconduct when she gave her son, who was injail following an arrest, anxiety medication, which was made from a controlled substance, without prior permission or authorization.

Based upon respondent's admissions and the stipulation ofthe parties, the panel found that respondent violated or attempted to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assisted or induced another to do so, or did so through the acts of another, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a); engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MCR 9.104(1); engaged in conduct that exposed the legal profession orthe courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2); and engaged in conduct that was contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent be rep'rimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $800.17. ~a~

Mark A. Armitage Executive Director

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.